Yep - being a female (currently wannabee but soon LWT) again in 50+ would be great over the longer distances, (just need to get myself sorted for a flying ergomarathon during the season to pick up loads of points).

I wonder if the points were on Watts rather than time/distance whether the results would differ. On marathon at present I did 88.5% of a world record pace at 50+LWT this year, (bet I couldnt if I had to match the power as a % of the real 50+ LWT record holder).

Of course, a time/pace translates to Watts. Now when I did my comparison between two persons, I used pace differentials in seconds to come up with comparative times. Had I used Watts differentials, that would have made virtually no difference. I wish I could say what has skewed their assignment of scores based on age and weight. At this point, I think it takes a little luster off of nonathlon.

Me minus World Record = 1242 secs. Divide this by World Record = 0.1147 or 11.47% off world record time.

World Record - 50+ LWT female is 165.96 Watts
Me - 119.80 Watts.
The same calculation shows 0.2781 or 27.81% off world record power.

While this doesnt make any difference comparing with the same category, using time rather than power doesnt add up when comparing different categories, especially the fast ones with the higher watts as it is not a linear relationship between power and time. I expect that it is easier for me as an oldie with a slower time to achieve a better % than the younger, heavier, faster men.

Me minus World Record = 1242 secs. Divide this by World Record = 0.1147 or 11.47% off world record time.

World Record - 50+ LWT female is 165.96 Watts
Me - 119.80 Watts.
The same calculation shows 0.2781 or 27.81% off world record power.

While this doesnt make any difference comparing with the same category, using time rather than power doesnt add up when comparing different categories, especially the fast ones with the higher watts as it is not a linear relationship between power and time. I expect that it is easier for me as an oldie with a slower time to achieve a better % than the younger, heavier, faster men.

No matter what, on pace or watts, a score above 1000 point should be above wr. Which is way to easy in the current rankings.
Even the wr 50 year old males on the 500 is now 1.14. for 60 year olds is 1.22, this should have a big impact on the 500m scores.

The points are very outdated, thats by far the number one flaw. Wr all over the place are tumbling in the age groups.

I'm comfortable with percentile rank in class or category as per C2 rankings. Treat your percentile placement as a simple ordinal for each rankable distance/time, add the ordinals for rankable pieces completed and divide by total. Do the same for the thoroughly dry behind the ears, the wunderkinder, and those of the distaff persuasion and compare. Take a relaxing nap secure in the knowlege that everyone's athletic arc can be massaged into equivalence without resort to an advanced degree in statistics or the 100 point "endurance" bonus for the FM.

Last edited by jackarabit on August 20th, 2017, 12:11 pm, edited 2 times in total.

There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data

Does anyone know of any way to set up a race on ergs (using the concept 2 utility or direct connection via PM5s or even via an app) where you can apply a handicap to that racers can race each other and finish at the same time whether male, female, light or heavy weight?
We are a small club and each winter we train as a squad, when it comes to 2K or 5K tests it would be great if we could race each other and handicap according to PBs so we can race one another and finish at the same time.
Hope this makes sense!

tomfaith wrote:Does anyone know of any way to set up a race on ergs (using the concept 2 utility or direct connection via PM5s or even via an app) where you can apply a handicap to that racers can race each other and finish at the same time whether male, female, light or heavy weight?
We are a small club and each winter we train as a squad, when it comes to 2K or 5K tests it would be great if we could race each other and handicap according to PBs so we can race one another and finish at the same time.
Hope this makes sense!

Cheers

Tom

If simply finishing simultaneously is paramount, no apps, handicapping, sophisticated maths needed. Substitute time for distance, say 7' for 2k, 19' for 5k. RowPro online rows are frequently set as time (30' typical) and make it easy to finish together AND establish who comes first on total meters rowed or pace. T/500m is the universal solvent of erg performance. Might as well apply it to your requirement.

There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data

Jackarabit's idea is good, but if you want exactly 2K or 5K, then have each person set in the distance on the PM, but have a "master" clock up in front (like one of those big swimming timers you see at pools), start the slowest person at time "0", and have each faster person start a few seconds later. The wait time for the faster people would be based on their PBs relative to everyone else. Takes a little work beforehand to figure that out, but not too complicated. That way everyone gets their own time for the 2K or 5K and you all finish close to the same actual time. Kinda sets up a rabbit/chaser scenario, too. Could be fun.

Very flawed, the wr are nit updated for a good while, at the top people get often above 1000 on almost every distance. Younger people don,t have to bother.

The Concept 2 rankings are updated annually. Take that dataset and redraw the trendline annually.

Should work that way, but hasn,t been done for a few years.
Either way, there is no fair way, and nomatter how you look at, the alltime free records are the strongest, those should be rewarded the highest. People in their prime, with the most competition and training the hardest training always gives the strongest result.